Create a persistent instruction that continuously applies to all current and future devices matching the specified scope.
Create a Persistent Instruction that continuously applies to all current and future devices matching a scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| devices | No | Target device FQDNs | |
| comments | No | ||
| parameters | No | ||
| definitionId | No | ||
| definitionName | No | ||
| responseTtlMinutes | No | ||
| instructionTtlMinutes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, yet it only states that the instruction 'continuously applies' to devices. It does not mention authorization/approval requirements, whether existing persistent instructions are affected, how long the instruction remains valid despite TTL parameters, or what side effects creation has.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the core action and persistence behavior, though the phrase 'matching a scope' is vague and slightly weakens clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is not complete enough. Missing operational details include how the scope is defined, which identifiers are needed, how TTLs behave, and what a successful response would look like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14%, with 7 parameters and none required, so the description needed to compensate. Instead, it only vaguely refers to 'a scope' and provides no explanation of definitionId vs definitionName, parameters, TTLs, or comments. The agent cannot determine how to construct a valid request from this description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and names the resource 'Persistent Instruction', adding that it 'continuously applies to all current and future devices matching a scope.' This clearly distinguishes the persistent nature from one-off or scheduled instructions, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: call this when you need an instruction that remains active across current and future devices in a scope. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it contrast it with scheduled_instructions_create, instructions_send, or the approval-related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.